California | Local

You are here: LAT Home > Articles > 2000 > October > 08 > California | Local

Archive for Sunday, October 08, 2000

Remarks on Perez by Rampart Trial Judge

Raising Eyebrows
By Ann W. O'Neill
October 08, 2000 in print edition B-1

In March 1997, long before the Rampart scandal unfolded, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Jacqueline A. Connor praised its central figure, corrupt-cop-turned-informant Rafael Perez, for his
“clear” and “professional” testimony during a kidnapping trial in her courtroom.

Perez was, Connor wrote in a letter of commendation, an example of “the best that law enforcement
offers its community.”

Three years later, after Perez’s confessions unleashed a police corruption investigation that continues
to turn Los Angeles’ criminal justice system upside down, Connor seemed to have forgotten
her glowing words. The disgraced cop she once had hailed as a hero was persona non grata in
her courtroom.

At least that was the impression Connor left with some of the 300 lawyers who attended a June 1
awards dinner sponsored by the Century City Bar Assn. Also honored that night was Winston Keith
McKesson, the lawyer who brokered the plea bargain that cast Perez at the center of a legal storm that
brought approximately 70 Los Angeles Police Department officers under investigation, while more than
100 tainted criminal convictions were overturned.

“I don’t know Mr. McKesson, but I don’t want to know him [pause, chuckle] until he gets some other
clients than Officer Perez,” Connor said as she accepted her award. She laughed again and continued,
“You can bring your other clients in my court, but please stay away on that one.”

Welcome or not, Perez indeed seems headed to Connor’s courtroom once again as a major
prosecution witness. He’s expected to testify against four Rampart officers accused of framing gang
members by planting evidence and lying in police reports and in court.

They are charged with scheming to obstruct or pervert justice. Jury selection in the case continues
this week.

It’s the first criminal case arising from the Rampart scandal, and legal analysts say that if the district
attorney’s office doesn’t obtain convictions, it’s unlikely that future prosecutions will follow.

Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008

 Perez’s credibility will be the central issue for the jurors.

And Connor’s words have come back to haunt her.

No one is accusing the judge, a Gov. George Deukmejian appointee, of any ethical breaches. She
spoke long before she was assigned the politically charged case.

But, given that she recently has made some controversial rulings, some lawyers now question whether
Connor’s words betrayed a pro-police bias–or at least gave the appearance of one. They also
question whether Connor should have disqualified herself.

“Given her statements, I don’t think she should have accepted the case,” McKesson said. “I think it can
open some of her rulings up to question.”

But the top judge in Los Angeles County saw no impropriety.

“There’s no need for her to recuse herself,” said Victor E. Chavez, presiding judge of the Los Angeles
County Superior Court. He has confidence in Connor’s ability to remain fair and impartial. He
characterized her as “a progressive judge … one of our finest.”

As for Connor, she’s not talking. Saying anything about the case she’s now trying would be an
ethical breach.

Connor, a graduate of the USC Law Center and a former prosecutor, spent two years on the Municipal
Court before her Superior Court appointment in 1988. She is a member of the court’s
executive committee, and is a strong advocate of reforms to make jury service more rewarding.

She is married to Superior Court Judge James A. Bascue, who takes over in January as
presiding judge.

Legal commentator Laurie Levenson, an associate dean at Loyola Law School, said that because
neither the prosecution nor the defense in the Rampart case challenged her, it was Connor’s call to
recuse herself if she felt uncomfortable about the letter she wrote and the comments she made at the
bar dinner.

“She actually had an easy escape out of this case,” Levenson added. “Given the headaches this case
will cause her, she could have taken the easy way out.”

As for the controversy over Connor’s comments and rulings, Chavez said judges on high-profile cases
have come to expect second-guessing.

“You make one temporary friend and one permanent enemy every time you rule,” Chavez said. In
defending Connor, he used the word “diligent” four times. “She’s a very proper person,” he added.

Connor had no comment on the Perez letter. And, she said through a court spokeswoman that she was
joking at the bar dinner. It was an offhand remark said in jest, she explained.

“It meant nothing. Everybody knew it was a joke,” said Chavez.

But not everyone was amused.

Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008

 “Those comments, whether made jokingly or not, seemed to express a bias against Mr. Perez,” said
McKesson, adding that Perez’s wife and mother, seated in the audience, took offense.

While the district attorney’s office is not commenting, McKesson and other criminal defense lawyers
say that prosecutors made a crucial tactical error by not exercising their legal right to
challenge Connor’s appointment.

That would have allowed them to seek another judge to preside over the trial of Rampart Sgts. Edward
Ortiz and Brian Liddy and officers Paul Harper and Michael Buchanan.

“She clearly feels betrayed by Rafael Perez,” said attorney Mark J. Geragos, speaking as a neutral
observer. “The D.A. made a huge mistake keeping her on the case, thinking she was pro-
prosecution. She’s pro-cop.”

Rampart Prosecutors Lose 2 Big Rulings

She long has had a reputation as a tough judge. Some criminal defense lawyers have griped for years
that Connor favored prosecutors.

But in recent weeks, Connor has stunned prosecutors with several rulings. Two delivered serious blows
to their case: Connor ruled that jurors can hear about five polygraph tests that Perez failed. And, she
excluded the testimony of about two dozen witnesses.

Most important among them were five women with clean records who prosecutors had hoped would
corroborate details of Perez’s story about a 1996 gun planting.

“I just think those rulings were not geared toward getting at the truth,” said Gregory W. Moreno, the civil
attorney for Javier Ovando, a man Perez says he and his partner shot, paralyzed and framed.

“I was really disappointed that she ruled to exclude key witnesses. I think those two rulings are
troublesome to a fair prosecution of this case.”

Connor excluded the witnesses because information about them had been handed over to the defense
too late. Several criminal defense attorneys said other judges have resorted to less severe sanctions.

Meanwhile, the defense lawyers for the four Rampart officers were ecstatic at the ruling. They had
refused to challenge Connor, even though they knew about the glowing letter she had written for
their clients’ chief accuser.

They think she’s been fair. “We’re shocked at getting a fair judge,” said attorney Harland W. Braun, who
represents Buchanan.

Connor also has embraced an experimental program designed to make the courts more user-friendly
for jurors. Levenson said such experiments are routine in courts in other parts of the country. “It did not
shock me,” Levenson said.

And so, as she had done often in the past, Connor allowed lawyers to give “mini opening statements”
during jury selection. Defense lawyers seized the opportunity to blast Perez as a corrupt, lying “police
monster” who may have committed three murders.

Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008

 Even more unusual, the defense lawyers were permitted to ask the potential jurors to acquit their
clients–a plea usually reserved for the closing arguments at the end of a trial.

Chavez said it would have been even more inappropriate for Connor to suspend her usual practices
during a high-profile, politically charged police corruption trial. And for years, he said, she has
written letters commending witnesses and public lawyers who perform well in her courtroom. “It’s her
M.O.,” he explained.

McKesson, Perez’s lawyer, said Connor’s handling of the case “would not be as troubling if she had not
made those comments.”

“Would she take them back? Probably,” Levenson said. “Did they mean very much? Probably not.”

Levenson believes that “the defense has the bigger gripe,” with the letter of commendation. And the
defense isn’t griping.

“Any judge who got this case would be put under a microscope,” Levenson added.

Chavez said he thinks Connor is doing fine. “I think she deserves a pat on the back rather than a rap
on the knuckles,” he said.

Times staff writers Scott Glover and Matt Lait contributed to this story.

Related Articles
z Perez a ‘Police Monster,’ Prospective Jurors Told Oct 05, 2000
z Diverse Jury Is Selected for First Rampart Case Trial Oct 11, 2000
z Rampart Trial Judge Not New to Spotlight Nov 17, 2000
z Carona defense wants trial moved, citing radio show Apr 05, 2008
z Jury is picked in bribe trial of ex-senator Apr 10, 2007

More articles by Ann W. O'Neill

More articles from the California | Local section

California and the world. Get the Times from $1.35 a week

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008